By BINYAM DANIEL

The Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival has rejected US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s characterization of armed opposition forces in Ethiopia as “separatists” and his reference to terrorist attacks, challenging Washington to reconsider its framing of the country’s conflicts and adopt what the coalition calls a balanced approach

In a statement issued on 18 October, the alliance argued that its military campaign was not intended to dismember Ethiopia but was undertaken in self-defence after, it alleged, the federal government rejected opportunities for peaceful political resolution. It cited the November 2022 Pretoria Agreement as one example of an effort whose commitments, in its view, were subsequently abandoned.

The statement represents more than a dispute over terminology. It exposes a fundamental disagreement over the origins of Ethiopia’s armed conflicts, the legitimacy of military resistance and the political conditions required to restore peace.

Yet the alliance’s rejection of Rubio’s language does not, by itself, establish the legitimacy of its military operations or settle questions about its conduct, political objectives and treatment of civilians.

The central question is whether Ethiopia’s conflict can be resolved through a framework that addresses the grievances driving armed resistance, protects civilians and creates a credible political process—or whether competing claims of legitimacy will continue to provide justification for military escalation.

Rubio’s remarks: diplomatic caution or political endorsement?

Rubio’s remarks came amid renewed fighting in northern Ethiopia and escalating tensions between Addis Ababa and Asmara.

Speaking to reporters on 17 October, Rubio referred to separatists attacking inside Ethiopia and described the Ethiopian government’s response in that context. He also referred to terrorist attacks, including drone attacks against the Ethiopian capital, while urging the government to exercise restraint.

Although Rubio did not identify the groups by name in the reported exchange, his language created an opening for competing interpretations of Washington’s position.

For the Ethiopian government and its supporters, the remarks could be interpreted as recognition of the security threat posed by armed opposition groups. For the Alliance for Survival, they risk legitimizing the federal government’s military campaign by presenting its opponents primarily as separatists and terrorists rather than as participants in conflicts rooted in longstanding political disputes.

However, Rubio’s remarks should not be confused with a formal US designation of the alliance as a terrorist organization. The available reporting does not establish that Washington has made such a designation.

The distinction matters. Political descriptions can shape diplomatic perceptions and influence how a conflict is understood internationally, but they do not substitute for a legal designation or an independent assessment of the conduct of the parties.

The alliance is therefore challenging both the substance of Rubio’s characterization and the potential political consequences of adopting it.

Washington’s message to Addis Ababa is more complicated than it appears

Rubio’s public remarks should also be read alongside his 14 October telephone conversation with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

According to the US State Department’s official readout, the discussion focused on heightened tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Rubio called for de-escalation by all sides, emphasized dialogue and engagement under the 2018 Ethiopia–Eritrea peace framework, and stressed respect for neighbouring countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The message was not an unconditional endorsement of Addis Ababa’s military strategy. It contained a broader warning against escalation and cross-border incursions.

That distinction is particularly important as Ethiopia and Eritrea move closer to another potentially devastating confrontation.

Washington faces a difficult diplomatic calculation. It must address the Ethiopian government’s security concerns without appearing to grant it unrestricted political or military latitude. At the same time, it must discourage actions that could turn Ethiopia’s internal conflicts into a wider regional war.

The US position therefore contains two elements that should not be conflated: concern over attacks against the Ethiopian state and an explicit demand for restraint in the region.

The alliance’s criticism focuses on the first. The second, however, places obligations on the Ethiopian government as well as on its opponents.

Pretoria’s Agreement and the unresolved question of peace

The alliance’s reference to the Pretoria Agreement raises one of the most consequential questions in Ethiopia’s post-war politics: what happens when a peace settlement ends large-scale fighting but fails to secure a durable political settlement?

Signed in November 2022 by the Ethiopian federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, the agreement ended the devastating two-year war between the parties. It established a framework for ending hostilities and addressing outstanding issues, including disarmament, the restoration of services and the return of displaced people.

The agreement was a major diplomatic achievement. But it was never a comprehensive settlement of every armed conflict in Ethiopia.

Implementation disputes, unresolved political questions and renewed confrontation have undermined the prospects for lasting stability. The latest fighting in Tigray has further exposed the fragility of the settlement.

An Associated Press report published on 16 October reported that the federal government had established a six-month caretaker administration for Tigray following the withdrawal of the TPLF from Mekelle and the entry of government-aligned fighters into the regional capital earlier in October.

The arrangement is intended to restore public services, assist displaced people and prepare for regional elections. But its success will depend on whether it can secure meaningful local participation, political confidence and security for communities that have experienced years of war.

A caretaker administration imposed or perceived as lacking broad legitimacy could deepen the very grievances it is intended to resolve. Conversely, a credible transitional process could help create space for political competition without renewed armed confrontation.

The Pretoria Agreement should therefore be judged not simply by whether major military operations temporarily cease, but by whether its commitments translate into lasting security, political inclusion and civilian protection.

The alliance’s invocation of Pretoria, however, requires scrutiny. Its claim that peaceful efforts were rejected is the coalition’s account of events, not an independently established conclusion. Determining responsibility for the collapse of the peace process requires examining the conduct of all parties, the implementation of specific commitments and the sequence of decisions that led to renewed fighting.

Who does the Alliance for Survival represent?

The Alliance for Survival brings together armed and political groups opposed to the federal government, including the TPLF, the Oromo Liberation Army and the Amhara Fano National Movement, alongside other groups, according to a report by Addis Standard’s report.

Its formation brings together movements with different regional bases, histories and political priorities under a common opposition framework.

That breadth could give the coalition greater political significance than any single member group acting alone. It could also expose substantial differences over the future structure of the Ethiopian state, regional autonomy, national power-sharing and the conditions under which armed groups would accept a negotiated settlement.

The alliance describes its objective as an inclusive democratic transition that would allow Ethiopians to determine the country’s political future. This is a potentially significant political claim, but it raises questions that cannot be answered by declarations alone.

What constitutional arrangement does the coalition propose? How would it accommodate the interests of Ethiopia’s diverse communities? Would its member groups accept a common political settlement if it required compromises over territorial authority or regional self-government? What mechanisms would ensure civilian oversight of its armed members?

These questions matter because opposition to a common adversary does not automatically translate into agreement on how a country should be governed.

The alliance also claims to represent a broad majority of Ethiopians. That assertion has not been independently demonstrated. Without credible evidence of public support, representative political processes and clearly articulated policies, the coalition cannot simply equate its military presence with a national mandate.

Equally, the federal government cannot assume that control of state institutions or territory automatically resolves the grievances that sustain armed opposition.

Both sides face a legitimacy test that extends beyond the battlefield.

The terrorism debate cannot replace scrutiny of military conduct

The alliance argues that describing its attacks on government military installations as terrorism misrepresents the conflict. It also accuses federal forces of using advanced weapons against military targets and densely populated civilian areas under opposition control.

These allegations have not been independently verified, according to Addis Standard’s reporting.

Nevertheless, the wider issue is important: the language used to describe armed groups should not become a substitute for investigating what those groups and government forces actually do.

Attacks directed at military installations must be assessed in their specific context. The presence of a military objective does not remove the obligation to distinguish combatants from civilians, take precautions and comply with applicable international humanitarian law. Deliberate attacks on civilians are prohibited regardless of the political cause invoked by those responsible.

The same standards apply to government forces. State authority does not exempt a military campaign from scrutiny, and allegations of attacks on civilian areas warrant credible, independent investigation.

The alliance’s statement does not address every allegation concerning attacks against government targets, including the drone attacks Rubio referenced. Nor does its characterization of its operations as self-defence establish that every operation conducted by its members was lawful.

A serious assessment must examine evidence, identify responsible actors and distinguish verified incidents from competing claims.

Reducing the conflict to a binary choice between legitimate state security operations and terrorist violence risks obscuring the complexity of the crisis. But replacing that framing with an equally uncritical portrayal of all opposition operations as self-defence would be no more satisfactory.

For civilians caught between the parties, accountability matters more than the labels each side assigns to its adversaries.

Ethiopia and Eritrea: the danger of two conflicts becoming one

The dispute over Rubio’s language is unfolding against an increasingly dangerous regional backdrop.

On 13 October, Reuters reported that Ethiopian troops had entered Zalambessa, a border town previously controlled by Tigrayan forces, as tensions with Eritrea intensified. The report described conflicting claims about territorial control and the presence of Eritrean forces.

The confrontation is particularly alarming because Ethiopia and Eritrea fought alongside one another during the 2020–2022 Tigray war, before their relationship deteriorated again.

The current dispute carries risks that extend beyond the immediate border. Ethiopia has intensified its political focus on access to the Red Sea following Eritrea’s independence in 1993, which left Ethiopia landlocked. Eritrea, meanwhile, has treated Ethiopian statements and actions concerning access to the sea as a potential threat to its sovereignty.

These strategic interests, combined with mutual distrust and the presence of armed forces near contested areas, create conditions in which a local incident could trigger a wider confrontation.

The danger is that Ethiopia’s internal conflicts and its external tensions with Eritrea could reinforce one another. Domestic political grievances may become entangled with national security arguments, while military mobilization along the border could further complicate efforts to resolve conflicts within Ethiopia.

Rubio’s call for de-escalation is therefore significant, but diplomacy will have to move beyond general appeals for restraint. It will require credible communication between the governments, respect for territorial boundaries, mechanisms to prevent incidents from escalating and sustained engagement with the internal conflicts threatening regional stability.

The limits of waiting for Washington

The alliance has called on the United States to adopt a balanced and constructive position. But Ethiopia’s political future cannot depend exclusively on how Washington describes the conflict.

American diplomacy can influence calculations through political engagement, international partnerships and other policy instruments. Yet a statement from the secretary of state is not, by itself, a peace process, a security guarantee or a resolution of Ethiopia’s constitutional and political disputes.

The same caution applies to the suggestion that President Donald Trump’s changing policy positions elsewhere necessarily predict a reversal of US policy in the Horn of Africa. Such a conclusion requires specific evidence of policy changes, not simply an assumption that Washington’s position will prove temporary.

The more immediate question is what the United States intends to do with its stated commitment to de-escalation and dialogue.

Will it consistently press all parties to avoid cross-border escalation? Will it support credible efforts to address Ethiopia’s internal conflicts? Will it insist that allegations of abuses by both government and opposition forces be independently investigated? And will it encourage a political process that includes affected communities rather than relying exclusively on negotiations among armed actors?

The answers will matter more than the competing interpretations of Rubio’s remarks.

Ethiopian political leaders and opposition groups, meanwhile, face their own responsibilities. A lasting settlement requires more than mutual accusations and demands that the other side surrender first. It requires credible guarantees, political compromise and a willingness to resolve disputes without placing civilians at the centre of another war.

A test of political maturity

The Alliance for Survival’s rejection of Rubio’s characterization has exposed the limits of a security-centred explanation for Ethiopia’s conflicts. But it has also created an opportunity for the coalition to clarify the political alternative it claims to offer.

If the alliance seeks to be regarded as a credible national political force, it must demonstrate that its commitment to democratic transition extends beyond opposition to Abiy Ahmed’s government.

That means explaining how it would protect political pluralism, respect civilian rights, resolve disputes among its member groups and eventually subordinate military power to legitimate civilian institutions.

The federal government faces an equally important test. Military gains and administrative appointments cannot, on their own, establish durable peace. Any transition that excludes significant sections of the population or fails to address unresolved grievances risks producing another cycle of resistance.

Washington, for its part, must avoid allowing its diplomatic language to be interpreted as a blank cheque for either side. Supporting Ethiopia’s territorial integrity does not require overlooking abuses or political exclusion. Opposing terrorism does not eliminate the need to understand the grievances driving conflict or to examine the legality of military operations.

Ultimately, Ethiopia’s crisis will not be resolved by deciding which side wins the argument over terminology. It will be resolved, if at all, by establishing a political order in which disputes over power, identity, regional autonomy and security can be addressed without recurring warfare.

Rubio’s remarks have sharpened the debate over how Ethiopia’s armed opposition should be understood. The alliance’s response has challenged Washington to look beyond labels.

The harder task for all concerned is to demonstrate that they have a credible alternative to another devastating war.

For Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa, the stakes are no longer confined to who controls the narrative. They concern whether diplomacy can prevent a renewed cycle of internal conflict and interstate confrontation before it becomes a regional catastrophe.